Re: [PATCH 1/3] configure.ac: check tv_nsec field in struct stat

From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Date: Jan 7, 2015, 21:57 UTC
Message-ID: <CAPig+cRLMZMoW7Oe8ViB=3R9iSxp88haR7CZ1SHaW0sCnhJ=0Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD_8n+RBJHDjFCEY8GmbsqyyyxPEo71Lg03M7y9dMcu74y6m-w@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Reuben Hawkins <reubenhwk@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Reuben Hawkins <reubenhwk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> +# Define USE_ST_TIMESPEC=YesPlease when stat.st_mtimespec.tv_nsec exist
>>
>> It would be slightly more accurate to drop the ".tv_nsec" bit from this comment.
>
> The AC_CHECK_MEMBER is checking for st_mtimespec.tv_nsec.  If I drop
> tv_nsec from the comment should I also drop it in the check?

No. My observation was just about the comment.

> I thought it was better to be very explicit because the code using the
> check is using that .tv_nsec field...I figured the check may as well
> do exactly what the code is doing...

Indeed, the check and code should agree. However, from the perspective of the person reading comment, the ".tv_nsec" is just an implementation detail of the check itself. The final outcome (the setting of USE_ST_TIMESPEC) is independent of how that check was made: it matters only that 'stat.st_mtimespec' was detected _somehow_.

Anyhow, it's just a minor observation, hence my qualification of it as "_slightly_ more accurate". If you feel strongly that it should remain as is, then that's fine.